mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the veto message to accompany s. 2040, which the clerk will report. the clerk: vietnam message a company s. 2040, the justice against sponsors of terrorism act. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two hours of debate equally divided between the leaders h.r. their designees. -- between the leaders or their designees. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i am honored to open the debate today on the forts by this body and the united states congress to give loved ones of the victims of terrorism on 9/11 their day in court simpler justice. 15 years ago we stood in horror as our country suffered the worst terrorist attack on the united states in the history of our nation. nearly 3,000 innocent lives were lost, including heroic first responders, firemen, police, and beloved and honorable men and women, 148 of them from my home state of connecticut. over these years i have watched and listened to them in their strength and courage as they have sought tirelessly to make this system of justice work in the memory of their loved ones. the terrorists who struck on 9/11 tried and failed to destroy that system of justice and the ideals of this nation. our hearts were broken, but our country and our ideals were not. over the past 15 years, i've been honored to work with those families, and today gives us the opportunity to move forward with legislation despite the president's veto. i deeply respect the president and the reasons that he has given for vetoing the justice against sponsors of terrorism act. but i urge my colleagues to move swiftly and soundly to reverse this veto so that these families can have their day in court. that is what the legal system of this country is designed to do. it is a system that i have spent my career before the senate working to ensure accountability for wrongdoers and restoration of victims' rights, promises to citizens that are made by our constitution that there will be a neutral and fair forum to determine their claims. these families will never get back their loved ones, but they deserve justice and a day in court, and that is why we will today, i hope, override the president's veto. 15 years after that tragedy, we are still learning the facts, but there is mounting evidence that the saudi government -- or at least operations and operatives within the saudi government -- aided and abetted one of the most massive crimes in the united states. in our system, the truth behind those facts deserves to be presented in court, a court of law where fairness and justice will be assured. this measure does not prejudge a verdict or issue a judgment. it gives both sides a fair day in court. and if the saudi government had no involvement in 9/11, it has nothing to fear. but if it was cul -- but if it s culpable, it should be held accountable. that is the basic principle of this measure. when all is said and done, the justice against sponsors of terrorism act simile close -- simply closes a loophole that was crate creteed by the courts, contrary to the intent of this body. that loophole in effect permits foreign governments to aid and abet crimes against the citizens of this country, as long as it's aiding and abetting occurred outside our borders. think of it as is missile launched from another country by terrorists there with the support and assistance of that foreign government. that foreign government can evade any and all responsibility simply because the missile was launched outside our borders. similarly, the missile of terrorism can be launched outside our borders, and the foreign government, including saudi arabia, is able to evade all responsibility under the decision made by the second circuit court of appeals in new york that created that loophole. and so that foreign government can give terrorists bags of money, tons of explosives to carry out murder within our borders as long as it does so outside our borders. and that is wrong. the principle here is broader and bigger than saudi arabia or even the 9/11 victims. it is about simple justice. our law should recognize the reality that global crimes can be sponsored and supported outside our borders and inflict grave harm, including murder, on the citizens of our country within our borders. this loophole will be closed by this measure for the benefit not only of the 9/11 victims but also potential victims in the future. it will send the message and deter violent crime in this country, aided and abetted by foreign governments in the future. it will deter that kind of violence through an ideal and a tradition that is uniquely american. a system of justice that opposes, imposes accountability and makes sure that everybody has a fair day in court. i know that questions have been raised about potential retaliation or reprisals against members of our military or citizens in other countries. this nation should stand firm and strong against terrorist violence, and we have nothing to fear as long as we do not engage in supporting or sponsoring the kind of violence that occurred on 9/11 here. and we must trust that our government would never be responsible for that kind of aiding and abetting of deliberate killing of innocent civilians, purposeful massacre of people who are innocent. i am honored to begin this debate, and i hope it will be closed in a way that vindicates the rights as well as the interest of our country. i am proud to join colleagues on both sides of the aisle. this measure has been bipartisan from the start, and i particularly want to thank my colleagues, senator schumer and senator cornyn, for their leadership. i believe that a bill that was unanimously passed by both houses of congress, strongly supported by both sides of the aisle, deserves to become law. and i trust and believe it will today. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated, please. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that daniel ball, an f.c.c. detailee with the commerce committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 114th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: thank you. mr. president, i rise today to address a recent ruling from the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. last week the court issued a ruling that was a victory for america's ag producers and rebuke to washington regulators. specifically, the court ruled the occupational safety and health administration, or osha, violated the law when it imposed new limits on hydro pneumonia storage. i realize many of my colleagues may not be familiar with an anhydroous an money i can't. it is the -- ammonia. it is the most cost effective fertilizer. it is an essential input for ag producers in nebraska and all across this country. it allows them to produce more food while using less land, less water and, yes, less fertilizer. producers receive anhydro ammonia from retail facilities. these are primarily farmer-owned cooperatives found in more than 400 locations across the state. these facilities store an hydro ous ammonia on their properties and have been exempt from certain osha regulations. but in 2015 osha issued a new standard affecting these retail fertilizer facilities, and they did so illegally without public notice or industry input. osha's new standard would have required retailers to provide documentation that these tanks fit certain specifications. if a retailer couldn't produce that paperwork, well then he or she would be required to purchase an entirely new tank, and these tanks are expensive. the starting price is in the neighborhood of $70,000. furthermore, these tanks vary in size from state to state. and several tank manufacturers are no longer in business. osha's unrealistic expectations made it impossible for these retailers and producers to obtain the needed paperwork which meant that these retailers would have been forced to purchase those tanks even though their old ones worked just fine. understandably this became a major headache for retailers and producers. for example, in my home state of nebraska, central valley ag cooperative, which is located in york, anticipated compliance costs of $5.6 million. this includes an additional $100,000 of ongoing compliance costs every year. in elmwood, nebraska, midwest farmers cooperative estimated producers would spend $20 to $28 more per acre when applying fertilizer to their fields. given the current state of the farm economy, these increased costs would have been devastating. they would have forced many farmers to leave the industry altogether, and that would be heartbreaking enough. but there was another even more troubling aspect to osha's standards. they never put it through the required public notice and comment process. osha is required by law to conduct this process, as are most federal agencies, whenever they issue a new regulation or a standard. the public notice and comment period is a built-in safeguard. it allows those who would be affected by a proposed legislation to have their voices heard, and ideally the government would listen to their voice. but osha didn't follow the rules. they did not listen they didn't even try to listen. they said their new policy was effective immediately. that was unacceptable to me. in response this summer i introduced bipartisan legislation with senator heidi heitkamp. it was known as the farm bill. we offered this -- it was known as the farm act. and we offered this legislation to provide relief to farmers and force osha to follow the law. last week the u.s. d.c. court of appeals for the u.s. circuit enforced this legislation by forcing osha to vacate thairl thairl -- their illegal and harmful standard. with this ruling, an important precedent has been set. the court made it clear osha improperly expanded the scope, complexity and costs of regulation on ag facilities that handle anhydrous ammonia. by disrupting the supply of the vital fertilizer, osha would have disrupted farming regulations and those operations. worse, they would have harmed farmers' ability to do their jobs and also to provide for their families. so i'm relieved that the courts came in and upheld the ruling ruling -- rule of law. america's ag producers will now face one less hardship. they can focus on feeding the world and providing for their own families. at the same time i remain appalled that osha would so brazenly disregard the law in the first place. mr. president, this is another example of why the american people don't trust the federal government. and honestly, i don't blame them. when the federal government doesn't follow its own law, it destroys that public trust. out-of-control agencies like osha, which do not follow the law, need to be stopped when their overly burdensome regulations hurt americans. let the american people do their jobs. let them raise their families, earn their living and pursue their life's purposes. when the bureaucracy fails to do this, it is the responsibility of members of congress to step in. i am glad that i've done so. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i would note the -- mr. president, i would ask consent that all time spent in a quorum call before the vote on the veto message to accompany s. 2040 be charged equally against each side. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. as the senate knows, today we're considering the president's misguided decision to veto a piece of legislation that passed this body unanimously by unanimous consent and likewise passed the house of representatives with no dissenting votes. now, in our polarized politics of today, this is pretty much close to a miraculous occurrence because democrats and republicans, senators, house members have all agreed that the justice against sponsors of terrorism act, which gives the victims of a terrorist attack on our own soil, an opportunity to seek the justice they deserve. all of us have come together and agreed that this is appropriate and the right thing to do. at a time when international terrorism is spreading, f.b.i. director comey yesterday warned of a terrorist diaspora. the justice against sponsors of terrorism act will send a strong message to those who sponsor terrorist attacks on american soil, including foreign governments will answer to those victims and pay for the death and destruction that they caused. current law already allows for american victims to sue foreign governments for many different offenses committed by their employees -- commercial wrongs, assault, drunk driving, rape, human trafficking, among others. that's already part of existing law. jasta would clarify that sponsoring an act of terrorism in america is added to that list. if we allow lawsuits against foreign governments for bar fights, contract breaches, drunk driving, then we should allow the victims of a terrorist attack on our soil the opportunity for their day in court as well. this is an important piece of legislation, and it is straightforward. that's why i believe we got the unanimous support in both bodies that we have. i want to just make clear, though, that this has not been a quick process. this legislation has been pending really since 2009, and it's worked -- we have worked through with a number of members concerns that they have expressed along the way in order to modify the legislation and build the consensus that we now have achieved. there have been many different drafts and feedback from members. a lot of consultations with family members who have been affected and a lot has gone into this legislation. that means that this bill has been negotiated and hammered out over a long period of time, and that's the reason we were able to garner such strong support from both bodies to get the bill passed. last friday, the president chose to ignore the voices of american terrorism victims by vetoing this legislation. fortunately today, this chamber will have a choice and have a chance to exercise our constitutional prerogative under article 1, section 7 of the constitution. we'll have a chance to act as a check on president obama by voting to override his veto. i've read president obama's veto message, and it's not persuasive. that's because it described a bill that doesn't exist and misrepresents the state of the law. he cites concerns that the bill would -- quote -- create complications -- close quote -- he says, with some of our close partners, but the truth is jasta only targets foreign governments who sponsor terrorist attacks on american soil, plain and simple. i don't know how that would create complications with some of our close partners. the financing of terrorism in the united states is not behavior we should tolerate in any nation, allies included. how can anyone look at the families in the eye and tell them that they shouldn't have the opportunity to seek justice against a foreign government responsible for the death of their loved one? the president has claimed that this legislation would result in a flood of lawsuits against americans by foreign governments. well, what the president ignores is that we're already being sued by foreign nations already under the current state of the law, but a law like jasta applied reciprocally will open no such floodgates. the president even had the audacity to claim this this legislation might lead to lawsuits against members of the military, but had he read the plain text of the bill, he would know this bill only allows for lawsuits against foreign governments, not individuals. and he would also know that it contains a specific exemption for our armed forces. finally, mr. president, jasta is not a sweeping legislative overhaul that dramatically alters international law. it's an extension of a law that's been on the books since 1978. once again, there are numerous exemptions that prevent foreign governments from shielding themselves from litigation when they cause harm. the president has also complained that this applies to conduct committed abroad, but today and for 40 years, our law has been replete with immunity exceptions that apply to conduct committed abroad. this bill just adds another exception. so in the end -- at the end of the day, this vote is about doing what's right for the american people. some of our colleagues have expressed concerns about how it might be interpreted by some of our allies, but the fact of the matter is this legislation does not mention any particular country. all it does is carves out an exception to this notion of sovereign immunity for conduct committed in a terrorist attack on american soil. you know, the whole idea of sovereign immunity is -- comes from -- comes from england and our anglo-american inheritance in our law, and the notion is that the king in england could do no wrong, and so you couldn't sue the government. but we've recognized the injustice that would cause, even in our own country, when we passed -- congress has passed numerous exceptions under which the u.s. government can be sued in our own court, recognizing that equal justice under the law does not create a situation where it should not -- it should not tolerate a situation where the government was simply immune from litigation and paying its fair compensation in individual lawsuits. so this legislation is really about pursuing justice and the legal process it can serve, continue to serve as a foundation 0 our republic. at its core, this bill is about protecting the voices and the rights of the american victim. i believe that we have many important allies around the world with whom our interests are alined, but when our interests diverge and it's a question of protecting american rights and american values, i think we should always do that rather than somehow subjugate those rights and values to the interests of some foreign government. so this is not about -- this is not about severing our relationship with any ally. this is simply a matter of justice. this is about respecting the voices and the rights of the american victims. at about noon today, this chamber should vote overwhelmingly to override president obama's veto of the justice against sponsors of terrorism act because the families have already suffered too much. they've already suffered untold tragedy, of course, and they deserve to find a path to closure that only justice can provide. i, like many of my colleagues, have had a chance to meet with a number of families, the victims of 9/11. their stories, of course, are heart breaking, and i know none of us will forget where we were on that fateful day. our country has changed undeniably, but for these families that day and each day serve as a tragic reminder of deep personal loss. one of these family members that i have had the chance to get to know is marge mathers who now calls texas home. marge's husband charles worked on the 99th floor of the north tower of the world trade center. she says she turned on the television that fateful day and watched in horror as the tower in which charles was working collapsed. marge moved to texas soon after september 11, but her grieving and our nation's grieving continues, and of course will never completely end. i pledged long ago to marge and to other families i have met that i would do my very let best to help them right this wrong -- my very level best to help them right this wrong and to provide an opportunity for them to make their case in a court of law. so we would fix this law by extending this 1978 provision, the foreign sovereign immunities act, to allow the families and the victims of the 9/11 tragedy to seek justice in a court of law, in an american court. these families should have the right to make their case. these families should have the freedom to have their day in court and have a judge hear their case and to hold accountable those who played a role in their suffering. that's what this legislation is all about. providing them the freedom to do so. the families of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that occurred here in the united states have waited a long time, and i am hopeful they won't have to wait any longer for the opportunity to pursue justice. i hope every member of this body will join me in supporting this bill one more time and will vote to override the president's veto and further the cause of justice for these victims. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. reid: is the senate in the process of a quorum be called. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that that be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i come to the floor today to give the people of flint, michigan, the assurance that they're going to get some help. after more than a year, i've had an opportunity to meet with senator stabenow, talked to her a number of times this morning. i've had occasion to visit with the majority leader. and i've spoken to leader pelosi, and i am convinced that there's going to be help for flint in the lame-duck. they've been waiting for help. they deserve help. and i'm very happy it is going to come. the people there deserve their relief. what's going on there has been wrong. but now i feel very comfortable in being able to say that the people of flint, michigan, i've had conversations with people that have -- i've been given the assurance by the republican leadership that something will happen in the lame duck. we've been waiting a long time to get this done, and it is going to happen. as indicated a minute ago, i've had a umin of conversations with leader -- i've had a number of conversations with leader pelosi this morning. and one never wants to say what someone has said, but i can say that i felt comfortable in talking to her that the house feels comfortable with where they are on flint. we feel comfortable here in the senate. and i really appreciate the hard work of senator stabenow and senator peters, because they have been tireless, relentless in making sure the people of flint, michigan, get some help. so, mr. president, i think it should be a good day for the senate. it should lead to our being able to move forward on this continuing resolution. there are a couple of other outstanding issues, but i think they should be able to be resolved. i yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i note the absence of a quorum. officer sphoar the clerk will call the roll -- the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator maryland. mr. cardin: i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, take this time to speak about the justice against sponsors of terrorism act, better known as jasta, and i'm going to support the veto override. i.t. not without -- it's not without concern of the poe teption unintended -- the potential unintended consequences. i've come to the conclusion that the risks of shielding the perpetrators of terrorism from justice outweighs the risk on how other countries might respond to -- and perhaps compromise -- u.s. interests. 15 years have passed since the september 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. but in my home state of maryland and across the country, the pain caused by the events of that day is still real. it was a national tragedy for the united states. but we were personally devastated for fathers, mothers, husband, wives and children in maryland and throughout the country. the 9/11 victims and their families deserve meaningful relief, and i cannot support putting obstacles in the way of victims of terrorism seeking justice. i understand that this legislation may have an effect on longheld sovereign immunity principles and share some of those concerns that the president has articulated in his veto message. and i share the president's view about the importance of upholding sovereign immunity to the extent that we can and to the extent that it makes sense. but the principles of sovereign immunity were put in place at a time when acts of terrorism -- international terrorism were not as common. exceptions to sovereign immunity have grown overtime as times have changed. in today's world it is my view that we must make sure that the international community understands that there is a clear distinction between those that oppose terrorism and those that sponsor terrorism. those who commit or support terrorist acts in the united states should face the full weight of our justice. jasta's intended purpose is to create a tort exception that allows terrorist victims and their families to seek justice for acts of international terrorism in the united states that are caused by terrorist torts of the foreign state or its officials. terrorism victims and their families in the united states should be able to have their day in court. we cannot in good conscience close the courthouse door to those families who have suffered unimaginable losses. mr. president, i have confidence in the american jurisprudence system that we will get this right in order to respect the lawful acts of governments but also to hold those who sponsor terrorism accountable under our system of justice. the legislation restricts the application of this exception. it only applies to acts of terrorism on u.s. soil. it establishes a standard that is greater than negligence in order to be able to have an actionable claim. there has to be ability for the government -- there is an ability for the government to stay the proceedings to negotiate a settlement so that the u.s. government can intercede. i think these exceptions were put in, negotiated in order to try to deal with some of the legitimate concerns that were initially raised. as ranking member of the senate foreign relations committee, i recognize that there are risk factors in terms of how other countries may respond to the enactment of jasta. as a nation with hundreds of thousands of troops that serve abroad, not to mention multiple foreign bases and facilities, the united states of america is a country that benefits from sovereign immunity, principles that protect our country and our country's interests. its armed forces, its government officials, from litigation in foreign courts. so therefore there is a concern of unintended consequences, including irresponsible applications to u.s. international activities by other countries. while i have faith and confidence in the american legal system, the same faith does not necessarily extend to the fairness of the legal systems of other countries that may claim that they are taking similar action against america when they're not. so we will need to follow closely how other countries respond and try to mitigate the risks to the united states abroad. and in my role as ranking member of the foreign relations committee, i intend to do just that. mr. president, i will seek to work with my colleagues to try to mitigate these risks, and i firmly support the efforts of the state department and the department of defense to mitigate any risks to our diplomacy, assets, troops abroad that may be caused by the enactment of jasta. i intend to explore with my colleagues the possibility of whether we need or will need additional legislative action. such additional legislation would allow justice for the family members of the victims of the 9/11 attack while ameliorating some of the potential adverse consequences of jasta. near my baltimore office in the inner harbor of maryland has created a memorial to the victims of the 9/11 attack. inspired bief the artifact from the new york world trade center, the memorial consists of three 22-foot-long twisted and torn amalgamated steel columns from the twin towers. the memorial provides a place of contemplation and a site to remember and reflect upon the events of september 11, 2001, while paying tribute to the 69 marylanders who lost their lives that day. each year, on september 11, baltimore's world trade center will act as a sundial to mark the chronological inscriptions of the events of that tragic day. today we hold close in our hearts and our prayers those marylanders who died on that day as well as the families and friends who lost lives and have been altered forever. there are no actions we can take to sufficiently heel the pain and -- heal the pain and suffering so many thousands of americans carry with them 15 years after that fateful september day, but our constituents and our fellow citizens are asking for a path to justice. this legislation creates that path, and having weighed both sides carefully, i am compelled to uphold it. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president, over the last several days, we have heard a lot of complaining from the other side about the partisanship that's involved with getting the final appropriation bills passed so government can function. yesterday, i came to the floor to talk about a bill that was being held up on the other side called the survivors bill of rights act of 2016 which passed the senate unanimously, passed the house of representatives unanimously and now it's being held up. what would be wrong with moving that bill? now, here's another bill. the justice against sponsors of terrorism act that passed this body unanimously on voice vote, unanimously in the other body and somehow the president of the united states vetoes it and then a democrat president vetoes something that passes unanimously and we're getting complaints from the other side about partisanship that tends to be our problem. so i come to the floor to talk about this veto. given the overwhelmingly bipartisan support that this legislation enjoys in both the senate and the house, i was surprised and hence very disappointed the president disregarded the will of the people and chose a course of action he did, and the will of the people is expressed through unanimous support in the senate, unanimous support in the house of representatives. he chose to use his veto pen, but today it's my hope and it's my expectation that the senate will exercise its constitutional authority and override that veto by president obama. this legislation has been truly bipartisan. a bipartisan effort since the very first day that it was introduced. i join senators cornyn and schumer as an original cosponsor of the legislation. our bill is sponsored by 16 members of the senate judiciary committee, and if you know anything about the judiciary committee, you know that getting 16 members of our committee to agree on any legislation is no small task. we have some very conservative members as well as some very liberal members getting all those members on board with this important legislation is a testament to just how broad its support really is. i moved this legislation out of committee unanimously in february, and then the full senate passed it unanimously in may. the house followed suit and passed it in september, and like the united states senate, the house of representatives passed the legislation unanimously. that's how this legislation arrived on the president's desk. it was sent to him with unanimous support in both the senate and the house from republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals. it has -- but it has run into some opposition. of course, it's not opposed by the victims of 9/11 and their families. they aren't asking for legislation that tips the scales in their favor. all they want is the opportunity to present their case in a court of law, and that's what this legislation would give those victims. the legislation has run into opposition because it is opposed by saudi arabia, who has been making threats against the united states about what it might do if congress stands with the american people and the 9/11 victims and their families instead of the leaders of saudi arabia. and now, according to press reports, that country has gone out and hired an army of lobbyists to work furiously in a last-minute attempt to derail it. so on exactly -- so on exactly what has the white house and saudi arabia based its opposition? they have made a lot of claims, but the one you hear most often is that if the united states stands with the 9/11 victims on this legislation and provides those victims the opportunity to make their case in court, then other countries could try to haul u.s. soldiers and other personnel into the courts of other countries. but what this claim ignores, of course, is that this bill does not allow lawsuits against individuals. it only allows it against foreign governments, and this bill expressly prohibits lawsuits arising from acts of war. so any claim by the president that this is all about protecting u.s. personnel from being hauled into foreign courts just doesn't hold water. the second most common argument some are making is that if congress stands up to the president, the saudis and their lobbyists and that -- and this legislation becomes law, the argument goes and the saudis will respond by pulling their money out of u.s. securities. well, let's set aside the fact that this appears to be an empty threat. it's highly unlikely that they would follow through on it, but even if they did, there will be plenty of buyers for those securities. but more importantly, is this really how we should be deciding policy? what kind of a message would that send to other foreign governments? the message would be clear -- if you want to influence u.s. legislation, make sure to buy up u.s. debt and then threaten to sell that debt any time the united states congress does something that you don't like. we absolutely then cannot be intimidated, and we cannot bend to that type of threat. that would send a terrible message to the rest of the world. so it's very unfortunate that president obama veto this important legislation and that we now need to have this vote, but it's my hope and it's my expectation that the senate as well as the house will stand with the 9/11 victims and their families and stand up to the president, stand up to saudi arabia and their army of lobbyists. i yield the floor and i suggest an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: mr. president, i rise to speak on the vote that is getting ready to take place at noon today. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: i'll be very brief. mr. president, i have met over the course of the last several days with the victims of 9/11 and like many people in this body have. i don't think i've ever met a more gracious, genuine, sincere group of people. and i know that they have sought some way of expressing their desire to seek justice in what happened on 9/11. again, i could not -- we all have constituents who come up and meet with us. these people certainly have not been from the state of tenness tennessee. but i have to say they presented their case in a way that is most heartfelt and i have tremendous empathy for all that they and their families have gone through. yesterday on the way outside the building, a gentleman came up to me and recognized me and told me about sitting in his home and seeing the planes go overhead and seeing them kill his wife. he talked to me about the conversation he had with the f.b.i. agent who now they've gotten to know about what had happened. senator schumer and senator cornyn have done a remarkable job in shepherding through this piece of legislation. and i give them tremendous credit for what they have done. i do want to say i don't think the senate nor house has functioned in an appropriate manner as it relates to a very important piece of legislation. we've had no hearings in the united states senate, this congress, and we've had no vote, no vote whatsoever of record on this piece of legislation. as a matter of fact, today will be the first vote. no doubt by fact that we went through the unanimous consent process and no one objected, no one objected, no doubt that registered our yes votes, if you will, without a record on this piece of legislation. mr. president, yesterday i brought my niece and nephew through this building before it opened, and i told them about the fact that there's a place in the back here that from time to time i've gone to pray before a big vote and how in recent times there haven't been many votes that have been that decisive or that have weighed on me as much as this vote today. today is -- today is one of those votes. i have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity that -- the sovereign immunity procedures that could be set in place by the countries as a result of this vote. i do. and for that reason i've circulated a letter -- i've circulated a letter that lays out those concerns and numbers of people within this body have signed that letter and they have said that we feel there could be in fact unintended consequences as a result of what we know is going to happen today. i've seen countries standing in the world be eroded over the course of the last several years, and i know there's debate over that. in my opinion i've seen our standing erode. and i'm concerned about the consequences that over time this vote will have on that. at the same time, i believe that the victims of 9/11 do deserve an outlet, a way themselves of seeking justice in this particular case. this to me is not about saudi arabia. it's about us. and i don't think the senate has yet gotten it right as it relates to the best way for the 9/11 victims to seek that justice. i know this bill provides them a way for that to occur. i don't think it's perfect. i think that a better way might have been to establish some type of tribunal where experts could come in and really identify what actually happened on discretionary decisions that took place within the country of saudi arabia. we make decisions around here that we believe are to be in our national interests. i've had tremendous difficulty with this one. and that's the reason we've generated a letter of concern to the two sponsors of this bill who handled this in the manner that they have. they've done an exmarry -- exemplary job. the senate has not functioned quite in the manner that it should and nor has the house. i think wind up today with an imperfect solution. i have concerns about this legislation not having a waiver. i have concerns about the fact that over time if this continues to build upon itself, we as a body, a body that to me has -- could use some great strengthening. we have a body that to me is in the process of building itself back to the place that it ought to be, and we've done that over the last couple of years. but let's face it. the institution of the united states senate itself has diminished over time, and we've got work to do to overcome that. so on balance i think this bill has problems. i think that we will be dealing with overcoming this over time. and i know numbers of us have joined together to express that. but i do think that to be consistent and to give the victims who have lost so much an opportunity to express themselves in this way is the appropriate thing to do at this time. i have head the concerns that have been expressed by the head of our joint chief. i've read the letter that came over from the president and certainly there are significant and important points to have been made. as a matter of fact, six months ago those points might have led us to a slightly different place today. so with tremendous reservations and concerns about where this legislation is going to lead us, with tremendous empathy towards the victims that have lived through so much, have seen -- that's affected their lives and will affect their lives for the long term, i'm going to support passage of this legislation today, but i do so understanding that there could be in fact unintended consequences that work against our national interest and with a determination should that occur, to work with others in this body to try to overcome that. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i know the distinguished senator from new york who sponsored this bill wishes to speak. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: how much time is left on each side? the presiding officer: the democrats have 14 minutes remaining. the majority has one minute remaining. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to finish my remarks and the vote occur needry thereafter -- immediately thereafter. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: thank you. and i thank my colleague from tennessee. i know he comes at this with the best of intentions and spirit. we disagree but he's an expert on foreign policy, and we all respect his judgment. i lies today, mr. president, to speak on behalf of my bill, the justice against sponsors of terrorism act or jasta. soon we will vote on whether or not to override the president's veto of this bill. this is a decision i do not take lightly. but as one of the authors of this legislation and a firm believer in its purpose, i believe the senate should confidently vote to override and i will lay out the reasons why as clearly as i can. the bill is near and dear to my heart as a new yorker because it would allow the victims of 9/11 to pursue some small measure of justice finally giving them the legal avenue to pursue the foreign sponsors of a terrorist attack that took the lives of their loved ones. the courts in new york unfortunately have dismissed the 9/11 victims' claims against certain foreign entities alleged to have helped the 9/11 attacks. these courts are following what i believe is a fundamentally incorrect reading of the foreign sovereign immunities act. do we really want a established inflexible precedent that foreign countries directly responsible for financing terrorist acts on u.s. soil are beyond the reach of justice? i don't think so. i don't think that in an age where we have state sponsors of terrorism, i don't think that's what the foreign service immunities act ever intended. so for the sake of these families, it should be made clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that every entity, including foreign states, will be held accountable if they are sponsors of heinous acts like 9/11. it's very simple. if the saudis were cal culpable, they should be held accountable. if they had nothing to do with 9/11, they have nothing to fear. and i might add, mr. president, the families are not simply seeking justice for themselves. they want to make sure that saudi arabia or any other country in the future knows they will pay the consequences if they aid and abetter rich -- abet terrorism. in a certain real sense, they are lighting a candle. when tragedy befalls somebody in a horrible and irrational way, a vicious way as has befallen these families, the natural instinct, the scriptures tell us is to curse the darkness. why me? to be angry, to turn inward. to wish the world would go away. but these families with amazing fortitude, persistence, and courage are lighting a candle. they are trying to make the world a better place, even though it will never bring their loved ones back. so it would never happen again. and i so respect that among many other things about them. now, let me address the foreign policy concerns some may have about the bill from which the veto arises. senator cornyn and i have discussed in depth many times here on the floor how we've narrowed the bill to strike the proper balance between our interests abroad and the right of our citizens to obtain redress when they are victims of terrorism on u.s. soil. in fact, mr. president, we penned an o-ed on that question in "u.s.a. today" that our requests be inserted into the record in its entirety. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i'd like to read a section of the op ed that addresses the chief concern of jasta opponents. quote, "jasta's opponents claim the bill will subject u.s. diplomats and other government officials to a wrath of potential lawsuits in foreign courts." not true. jasta simply builds on well established principles under the foreign sovereign immunities act. it returns the law to the way it was before a 2008 court case that granted sovereign immunity even in terrorism cases where citizens are murdered on u.s. soil. in the decades before this, there was no flood of lawsuits against u.s. citizens and u.s. interests. consistent with fifsia as designated by congress, victims can sue a foreign government if one of its employees causes damage arising from drunk driving, assault, or breach of contract. if u.s. victims can sue a foreign government for these reasons, they should be able to sue a foreign government that harms their loved ones by financing a terror attack on our homelandhomeland, unquote. so senator cornyn and i have worked very hard over the course of six years and several alliterations of the bill to strike the right balance. it's been a long, long work in progress. and i believe the measure of our success is reflected by the unanimous support the bill received in both houses of congress. in this body not a single person objected when it was brought to the floor to be voted on. democrats and republicans, mr. president, don't agree on much these days. but we agree on jasta. both parties agree that the families of the 9/11 victims deserve justice. that more than anything else should weigh most heavily on our minds today. mr. president, it's been 15 years since that awful day, a day that changed every new yorker, every american. we'll never forget the shock, the fear, the holes in our hearts, the friends and neighbors and loved ones we lost. the first responders and union workers and firefighters and policemen who bravely rushed to the tower, searching for signs of life in that smoldering rubble. i was there the day after. the smell of death was in the air. as a nation, we came together. we rebuilt. as new yorkers, we did the same. but, mr. president, we will never, ever forget. and in this debate, we cannot forget what this legislation means to the families of victims. it has been 15 years since mr. -- since miss terry astradid a lost her husband tom who worked in the north husband. she lost a husband, and she lost father to a young son 7, a daughter 4 and a newborn baby boivment she lost a loving father and her best friend. terri and her three children have championed

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , United States , New York , Tennessee , North Tower , Michigan , Nebraska , Texas , Washington , Iowa , Saudi Arabia , Maryland , Baltimore , Connecticut , New Yorker , Saudis , Marylanders , Americans , America , Saudi , American , Heidi Heitkamp ,